12 Comments

Ok, I have some problems with this whole issue.
The opinion piece says it’s about fairness. So it’s not fair if you come from a large family? If you go to carload night at the Starlite they don’t put a limit on how many can be in a carload (in fact it’s the opposite). By the logic suggested someone with a packed Suburban should be charged more than the packed Yugo. Is the inference that if you want to treated fairly, have less kids.
The other problem is it could be argued that the rule is singling out a particular ethnic group or the poor. People just want to have fun in the sun.
Another problem I have is the wording in the preceding article on the same issue. The line that I’m referring to state “One perception is that the proposed change will increase revenue at the pool.” They for got to put (wink) at the end of that sentence.
The article also states “Other communities in SD, such as Watertown and Brookings have similar rules.” What is doesn’t say is if they were smart enough to put the rule in from the start or did they also adjust the policy for “fairness”.
The fact that it runs at a loss and has from the beginning really begs the question…..what were these guys looking at when the decision to build the thing in the first place and to take it a step further….I really want a new Corn Palace and Event Center but when you think about the pool and other policies you have to wonder if the fiscal decisions will be any good

Sure it costs money, why is it a concern 7 yrs. after the fact? The point of the piece is fairness. Fair to who? There is nothing fair about it. The fees are reasonable? To who?
Where I grew up every neighborhood had a pool. You show your water bill and get a pool tag….for free. It’s been that way for over 60 years…and no limit to how many come in on the tag.

Dev, baby, am I to understand that even though as long as Mitchell has had an outdoor pool the family pass had no limits but because of poor fiscal management decisions there is now a policy that has NO chance of increasing revenue because the target of it can’t afford it, so all that has been accomplished is to eliminate the chance for a family, a large family, to enjoy time together and wrapped it under the pretense of “fairness”….you’re OK with that.
The ones that think it wasn’t fair are still living the glorious way they were. They just won’t have to put up with “those people” any more.